In the classrooms where Mr. Romney distinguished himself, there were no “right” answers — no right questions even, just a daily search for how to improve results. The Mitt Romney classmates knew then was a gifted fix-it man, attuned to the particulars of every situation he examined and eager to deliver what customers wanted.

“Mitt never struck me as an ideologue outside matters involving church and family,” said Howard Brownstein, a classmate. “He is a relativist, a pragmatist and a problem solver.”

That's from an article by Jodi Kantor in the NYT, and you can try to figure out if it's trying to promote Romney, undermine him, or tell it straight. I don't really know, but then, I like pragmatists and don't trust ideologues. For voters who look for an ideological structure of beliefs and mistrust pragmatism, this portrait will look different. But what I'm noticing, after all these months of mushy complaints about Romney's lack of "core values," is that there is no dirt on Romney. The criticisms about him are utterly abstract: he seems "plastic" or wishy-washy. Why do people keep saying things like that? I think it's because that's all they can say. The man has lived a blameless, virtuous life. He's the man who's never done anything wrong. Do you have a problem with that? He's too good?

If Mr. Romney melded with [Harvard Business School] l intellectually, he kept some distance from it socially. He was married and a parent. In the liberal precincts of Cambridge, he and his wife, Ann Romney — pictured wearing matching sweaters at a fall 1973 business school clambake, with their two sons on their laps — seemed like they were from “out on the prairies,” Mr. Brownstein said.

The future governor abstained from things many other students were doing: drinking coffee or alcohol, swearing, smoking.... When classmates visited the Romneys’ tidy home in suburban Belmont, they felt as if they were visiting a friend’s parents, not members of their own generation, and the young couple’s closest friends came from the Mormon church.

He's a big old square, you see.

The Romneys did let outsiders into their world, sometimes inviting study group members to their weekly “family home evening,” a night Mormons traditionally set aside for husbands, wives and children to spend time together. (Mr. Brownstein remembered Mrs. Romney showing him her basement: in accordance with Mormon custom, she had a year’s supply of food stored in bins and freezers.)

Those crazy Mormons! Family home evening... a year's worth of provisions, stored in the basement... are these the kind of people you'd like to put in charge of the economy?

Mr. Romney never seriously considered practicing law. “He wanted to make money, he wanted to solve problems,” said [Howard] Serkin, his former classmate. (In Mr. Romney’s world, money is “how you keep score,” he added.)

How many Howards did the NYT find to inject snark into every fact? Don't we want a President who will "keep score" with money? Or does solving problems and keeping track of money fit your "no core values" template for Romney?

"Conservatism, I repeat, is not an ideology. It does not breed fanatics.

....if you want men who seek, reasonably and prudently, to reconcile the best in the wisdom of our ancestors with the change which is essential to a vigorous civil social existence, then you will do well to turn to conservative principles. The high–minded conservative believes in Principle, or enduring values ascertained through appreciation of the wisdom of dead generations, the study of history, and the reconciliation of authority with the altered circumstances of our present life.

He is a highly reasonable person, although he looks with deep suspicion on the cult of Reason––the worship of an abstract rationality which asserts that mundane planning is able to solve all our difficulties of spirit and community. But the high–minded conservative detests Abstraction, or the passion for forcing men and societies into a preconceived pattern divorced from the special circumstances of different times and countries."

Stanley Cavell remarking on the difference between Emerson and Dewey the pragmatist.

"[F]or Dewey the relation between science and technology is unproblematic, even definitive, whereas for Emerson the power manifested in technology and its attendant concepts of intelligence and power and change and improvement are in contrast with the work, and the concept of the work, of realizing the world each human is empowered to think. For an Emersonian, the Deweyan is apt to seem an enlightened child, toying with the means of destruction, stinting the means of instruction, of provoking the self to work; for the Deweyan the Emersonian is apt to look, at best, like a Deweyan." (starts previous page)

Although not an ideology, the idea that a business should actually succeed is an important one. Once that basic concept is accepted, solving the problems facing that business can be approached pragmatically from that perspective.

At a minimum, and much as I disagree with Romney, he seems at least to accept the basic idea that America should succeed, and he will make decisions from that premise.

One can infer from all of Obama's training in collectivism that he has no such belief, which wholly explains his utter incompetence as President. That is, he does give a shit if America succeeds, and seems to prefer that it does not, as long as he and his family do well. His cronies can do well so long as that first principle is met.

Romney seems like a nice enough guy who has led a good capable life. The problem is: he's not a conservative (we already have a non-conservative in the WH); and he is not proposing to do the things necessary to avoid the cliff, like, yes, Ron Paul is.

In principle, not being an ideologue and taking each issue on its own merits is a good idea. But then, it depends on what you mean by "ideology." The military has what they call doctrine, which is basically an ideology based on past best practices. Obviously that changes, but somewhat slowly. The alternative to an ideology/doctrine is having to reinvent the wheel, each and every time. How many people are that competent, and is it really necessary? I prefer someone with an ideology, so that I can see where they are likely to go. You just need to be able to see the cases where something else is called for.

"Those crazy Mormons! Family home evening... a year's worth of provisions, stored in the basement... are these the kind of people you'd like to put in charge of the economy?"

is one of the best of 2011 - lists should be revised.

And it reveals a winning disposition for conservatism: sunny sensibility.

the comeback, ie, "Romney's a flippery-floppery liar", sounds shallow and boring by comparison. It infantalizes the portrait of a successful, complicated guy to a degree. And, generally, the kind of people who draw such simple portraits are, well, infants.

I like pragmatists and don't trust ideologues. For voters who look for an ideological structure of beliefs and mistrust pragmatism, this portrait will look different. But what I'm noticing, after all these months of mushy complaints about Romney's lack of "core values," is that there is no dirt on Romney. The criticisms about him are utterly abstract: he seems "plastic" or wishy-washy. Why do people keep saying things like that? I think it's because that's all they can say.

"Those crazy Mormons! Family home evening... a year's worth of provisions, stored in the basement... are these the kind of people you'd like to put in charge of the economy?"

is one of the best of 2011 - lists should be revised.

And it reveals a winning disposition for conservatism: sunny sensibility.

the comeback, ie, "Romney's a flippery-floppery liar", sounds shallow and boring by comparison. It infantalizes the portrait of a successful, complicated guy to a degree. And, generally, the kind of people who draw such simple portraits are, well, infants.

Oh, bullshit - that "sunny" portrait is about as shallow a reading of Mormonism as I've seen in a long time. Mormons store provisions because they're *extremely* paranoid - where's that in this article? (Ever wonder why Glenn Beck is always pushing dried food? Listen to the rest of his program,..."disaster" is just around the corner, folks,...) To say that beats "Romney's a flippery-floppery liar" - a statement that's not challenged and, thus, means you'd (and Ann) would like to put THAT KIND OF MAN in the White House - which Ann just did in 2008 - says more about you, than Romney, by a long shit:

Talk about living up to the phrase "you get the leaders you deserve,..."

Tarkwell Robotico: the comeback, ie, "Romney's a flippery-floppery liar", sounds shallow and boring by comparison. It infantalizes the portrait of a successful, complicated guy to a degree. And, generally, the kind of people who draw such simple portraits are, well, infants.

"shallow" "boring" "infants"

I see a lot of name calling but no refutation of the evidence Romney is a liar.

Romney lies. Perhaps that's a weakness of some Mormons, a focus on image to the point that it becomes a vice. I see how it could help a lot of people, but I also recognize the downside. And it's clearly apparent in Romney. Just make enough noise about Romney not appearing the right way and he'll do or say anything to ameliorate that criticism.

The problem is, people mistakenly think Romney is a flip-flopper when he is in fact a compulsive liar.

I read the link. I don't see any support for the statement that Romney is "a compulsive liar."

From the article:

Mr Romney moved into the building following a stay in Bordeaux, after being promoted to assistant to the president, Duane Anderson. He arrived in the spring of 1968, weeks before Paris erupted into riots, and returned to the US that December. He was given a room on the third floor.

So he was in this place for the end of his mission, but spent most of his time in other places, which could have been exactly as Romney described. Where is the lie?

Not only that, but it seems he was moved there because he was so competent. He was moved in when he became assistant to the president. Then, after the president was injured, this:

When the president returned to the US for surgery, J. Fielding Nelson, the president of the Geneva mission, was sent to Paris to take over. But Mr Romney had things so under control that he soon returned to Switzerland. “It was astonishing,” Mr Nelson said. “This 20-year-old kid was running it”.

Freeman Hunt: I read the link. I don't see any support for the statement that Romney is "a compulsive liar."

From the article:

Jean Caussé, a 72-year-old Mormon who met Mr Romney in Bordeaux, said he “would be astonished” if that had been the case. “I never knew missionaries who had to do that,” he said. “I don’t see why he would have lived in conditions like that for two years when it was far from the general case”.

Also:

Tearful as he described the house, Mr Anderson, 70, of Kaysville, Utah, said Romney aides had asked him not to speak publicly about their time together there.

And note Romney has never talked about any of this before, until he started wanting to sound all salt of the earth.

That's a nice description of conservatism, Pogo, or more specifically the conservative temperament. Too bad it doesn't describe you or resentful people like you who hate what America is and what it's become over the last century or so.

Mitt Romney is the right sort of person you'd want in a leadership position. He'd make a fine President. I may not vote for him (but I might, depends on how the next year goes), but I wouldn't spend any energy or money opposing his election.

"sunny sensibility" was an attributed I gave Althouse for making smart stuff enjoyable. I think pretty clearly wasn't talking about Mormonism and find your jump into Mormon waters weirdly off-topic.

for Jason:

all people lie. Good and moral people lie. Lying is one of the many social lubricants required for civilization.

If I see you on the elevator each morning and get in the habit of saying, "hi how are you?", you are never to say back to me, "like shit. I drank a quart of peach schapps last night and woke with a jack hammer digging a tunnel in my cerebellum."

no, you are supposed to lie, "fine thanks, and you?" That's the right thing to do.

The charge "liar" must be associated to a substantial (read: not just your own personal ranting point) lie in order for it to matter.

@Jason - The evidence you've provided amounts to minor resume padding, no? Not good, I agree, and totally fair to point out. However, if that's the best dirt folks have on Romney, he's about as clean as they come.

Tarkwell Robotico: And, if he is competent in everything but lying, how again is that a bad thing?

That's just it, I don't see him as especially competent. He's good at delivering memorized speeches. And yes, if everybody behaves just right he can perform well, but that's not how politics works. Business perhaps, but not politics.

Now if he had the balls to bill himself as the "boring" candidate I might like him. If he could live up to the hype and not try to go off script.

I fail to see where Romney is lying. The lodgings you get as a Mormon missionary vary widely. Romney's descriptions ring true. In several cases, Romney was clearly talking about one building and someone referenced in the article was talking about another. Understand that Mormon missionaries stay in a given area from two to six months. They do not stay in one place their entire mission.

Another point: depending on the mission president, assistants to the president may spend much of their time traveling around the mission. (Other mission presidents appoint specific missionaries to do this or don't bother at all; they have great discretion on how to run the mission.)

The one problem with someone using the Haavahd Business School model is that a good bit of the mess we're in was created on it.

John said...

The man has lived a blameless, virtuous life. He's the man who's never done anything wrong. Do you have a problem with that? He's too good?

Compared to which of the other candidates? Other than Gingrich and his habit of adultery, I think we can say the same about the others as well.

Where is the dirt on Santorum, Bachman, Perry, Paul?

Don't worry. Just as was the case with Herman, the Lefties are busy manufacturing some.

somefeller said...

That's a nice description of conservatism, Pogo, or more specifically the conservative temperament. Too bad it doesn't describe you or resentful people like you who hate what America is and what it's become over the last century or so.

It's the Lefties that hate this country.

Conservatives always seen that the Democrats are leading the country down the path to destruction and have fought it. In the last century, the Left has taken the most prosperous, freest country in the world and brought it to the brink of disaster.

The author's attempted abstraction from a b-school model to a model of human behavior is somewhat interesting, but also absurd. The only case study example sighted in any detail is the presentation that Mr. Romney gave about balancing family, faith, and work. Romney based his presentation on a key principle--yield. One assumes his analysis was also predicated on personal experience and his Mormon faith, among many other things. The idea that he's a relativist is crazy. He's a very intelligent, pragmatic, experienced executive, and he's a faithful Mormon. He's also a private and complicated man.

Politically, he's driven by results; not just policy results, but electoral results. His faith and experience push him right of center, but political reality push him closer to the middle.

The right's (and I consider myself a man of the right) yearning for a conservative savior is understandable, but not realistic given the field. We want Ronald Reagan--the only practical politician in American history who could also sell a consistent conservative ideology. But even Reagan failed at times.

The problem with business school cases is the same problem as many school exercises: it is self-contained, and there are only a limited number of acceptable solutions.

If Romney becomes president, he will be presented with numerous cases. Though they will be filtered somewhat through his political appointees, the relevant facts, the possible courses of action, and a lot of analysis will come from the permanent bureaucracy.

Not surprisingly, most of what he gets will say one of two things: "We are not doing enough (spending, regulating, etc); we should do more" or "What we're doing now isn't working; we should tweak it (and probably add at least one more program/agency/etc.)."

Since I think that the opposite is a proper response to many of our problems, I am not optimistic about him.

He DID, in fact, spend ALMOST all his professional life in private business. His only political experience was to run an amiable and obviously doomed Senate campaign against Ted Kennedy, and to win an easy election as Governor.

But Romney was no political insider, clawing his way up Massachusetts politics. He parachuted in for the Senate campaign as a dilettante from the thin ranks of Republican businesspeople in this state. He obviously had political ambitions and needed to begin to prove his bona fides, but he also was not spending much time or energy on it.

Later, he coasted to the governorship in a smooth campaign against a loathsome State House hackette, whom only the most partisan Democrats could stand. Romney also had the advantage of slipping into the long Republican gubernatorial penumbra cast by Bill Weld.

That Romney didn't run for an easy second term was considered by many here as an example of yet another governor toying with the office. We saw that with Bill Weld: Being Governor of Massachusetts seemed not to amuse him any longer, and he quit. Nor did Romney appear to find the Corner Office either challenging enough or worthy of his larger plans. He had efficiently punched his ticket in one term, and it was time to move on.

Some of us frankly would have preferred a professional who at least thought being Governor was worth his while. But Massachusetts, for all its pretensions, is a narrow, little state, unworthy of the intellect and energy of Mitt Romney, who obviously should be President, because, after all, of his fine achievements and flawless character.

There's one answer to Althouse's question, and the reason some people might be more comforted by a bug-eyed partisan, spouting factional cant, than a superior gentleman, enjoining their respect.

"That's from an article by Jodi Kantor in the NYT, and you can try to figure out if it's trying to promote Romney, undermine him, or tell it straight." Succinct and true for most of their coverage on the R-primaries.

You passed up McCain - a vet with 30 years in the senate - for empty suit Obama.

Now you're holding Newt - took over the House, wrote the Contract with America, balanced the budget, and eliminated welfare - for a guy who managed Utah's Winter Olympics and wrote RomneyCare.

Wow - just wow.

You have some of the hardest heads, and are some of the slowest-learners, I have EVER seen in my entire history on this planet. I'm talking some serious fucking boneheads,...I have seen drug addicts turn it around faster than you guys.

Crack, storing food may be a paranoid act for some or living sensibly for others. My own take growing up in this environment is that the church leaders who first pushed this all remembered the depression and other dire economic times in the mountain west. I believe they overreacted to events of the day (this was the late 60s) but their advise wasn't completely nuts--my father stretched the dollar by buying a lot of things on sale and storing them, cycling through food as needed. One benefit was that my mother could cook pretty much whatever she felt like without having to rush out to the store to buy something.

The other point, which has proved to be valid, is that Mormonism stresses self-sufficiency; to not depended on the government or someone else to save you. If they do, great, but it's not something you should have as part of the plan. During several natural disasters, Mormons have donated from their food storage. (When the Teton dam near Rexburg Idaho broke, the Mormon welfare organization kicked into gear, Mormons gave from their storage and within hours there were fleets of trucks moving north. By the time the federal government got on scene, their "organizational skills" weren't needed, just restitution for their crappy job on Teton dam.)

Roger Sweeny said...The problem with business school cases is the same problem as many school exercises: it is self-contained, and there are only a limited number of acceptable solutions.=============Incorrect. These are not self contained hypothetical businesses..but real ones that form the basis of each case study..and the only limits are law, markets, and abilities within the fiscal structure and economyv and technology in play when the case study was compiled.I know. I got my MBA from a good program that adapted the Harvard Business School template..and many of my books and cases were identical to the ones taught at Harvard.Sometimes the firms flaws are simple to see as an armchair quarterback. In other distressed businesses they are incredibly complex, sometimes in rapidly changing times with rival or new technologies and capacities opening some markets while destroying long-established ones. And in many such cases there is no right answer. All can do is compare your solutions to what actually did happen in reality..

When I was in, Romney was already featured in the Harvard curriculum with two case studies and a 1-hour video lecturing on turnarounds. All "optional" to the professor who selects the cases and "what happened after" reports or video.

We saw the video, and the case study that was featured in his turnaround. I was impressed by what Romney and Boston Capital Group did, and by his leadership heading the effort.

Where is Romney Agonistes? Is life really that easy? Can you go your entire life without questioning your faith or casting a sidelong glance at another woman or sloughing off the homework until Sunday night? I admire Romney and, of all the candidates, I would vote for him with the least hesitation. Still, there's something to his effortless perfection that puts one in mind of Richard Cory.

Jean Caussé, a 72-year-old Mormon who met Mr Romney in Bordeaux, said he “would be astonished” if that had been the case. “I never knew missionaries who had to do that,” he said. “I don’t see why he would have lived in conditions like that for two years when it was far from the general case”.

Also:

Tearful as he described the house, Mr Anderson, 70, of Kaysville, Utah, said Romney aides had asked him not to speak publicly about their time together there.

Precisely where in there is any evidence of lying?

One guys says most missionaries don't have to live in such conditions. This says nothing about whether or not Romney did. The crying guy says he was asked not to talk about it. Hardly surprising considering the effort to downplay anything about Romney that is distinctly Mormon.

The problem with Romney is that he is in one sense too conservative in that, like the conservatives of the early sixties, he "doesn't want to change anything; rather he simply wants to improve everything." In the pre "Great Society" sixties this meant a vote for "improving" not radically altering a basically conservative government and civic society. Today, however, such a vote means "preserving" a predominantly leftist, statist govt and civic society and thus making it (both govt and society) "run" more "efficiently" in the leftist mode when what is needed is NOT simply a more efficiently-run statist society/govt, i.e., an "improved" status quo, but rather radical change in the course of a ship-of-state headed rapidly towards the rocky shoals.

I am not sure Romney is the man for such major heading corrections. I fear he will merely tinker withe the engines "pragmatically" and simply make them capable of more "efficient" higher speeds spending the ship-of-state towards the rocks at increasing speed with little or no maj. course correction.

Crack - "You passed up McCain - a vet with 30 years in the senate - for empty suit Obama.

Now you're holding Newt - took over the House, wrote the Contract with America, balanced the budget, and eliminated welfare - for a guy who managed Utah's Winter Olympics and wrote RomneyCare.

Wow - just wow.

You have some of the hardest heads, and are some of the slowest-learners, I have EVER seen in my entire history on this planet......serious fucking heads,...I have seen drug addicts turn it around faster than you guys.

Like I said, simply amazing,...

====================Not directed at you Crack, but the saying on Newt that will stick is that he is the type of person stupid people think is brilliant and a great Leader.The budget was balanced on Clinton's tax increases, the 22 million jobs created in Clintons time despite the idiot bugaboo that only tax cuts make the wealthy Jobs Creators(TM) create jobs, and on huge defense cuts from the peace dividends after the Soviets collapsed. Welfare cuts pushed on Clinton created a fraction of the peace dividend cuts, and helped, but that extra money was quickly sent out as pork via the K-Streeters that Gingrich and Hastert supported.

Gingrich himself had 4 disastrous years as Speaker and was ousted by his own Party for incompetent executive and administrative leadership. He wrote the Contract so impressive to dumb people that see it as a Great Idea from the Overmind of Newt - fogetting that Newt began sabotaging it days after being named Speaker...term limits? - "Well, now that we are in power, and seniority dispenses the pork we have to give instead of Democrats..not a great idea to push in changing circumstances!"

BTW - Being a "vet" doesn't mean shit. George McGovern was many times the hero that McCain ever was, and he would have been a disaster. Same with Kerry. Or Goldwater. McCain was a dismal candidate and there is NO SUPPORT to draft The Hero Who Suffered So! - for a second shot.

Here's my take on Romney and flip-flopping and principles and the like:

Let's face it -- there are some pretty flaky beliefs in Mormonism. I mean, Christianity requires believing in one supernatural being who came to Earth in a real time and place. Mormons have to believe in an entire implausable civilization without archeological evidence (among other things). Yet there are a lot of very intellient Mormons, who surely have to block some questioning out of their mind, or live with an awareness that their religious beliefs don't hold up to scrutiny, because to abandon their religion would be to abandon family, friends, community, etc. And I wouldn't be surprised if this was in some way connected to a general "flip-flopping" ability.

Be that as it may, right now I want someone who's willing to say that, if $0.35 of every dollar the feds spend is borrowed, talking about "stimulus" is meaningless, and there has to be a way to fix the economy that doesn't cause us to be the next Greece. (My husband's German, though, so we have that as a fall-back if the U.S. economy crashes in a decade or so.)

Shiloh - "And yes, she was hoping mittens would get the 2008 nomination, so she could vote for a RINO."

I am convinced that we need a new definition of RINO.RINO is what certain people call the sort of moderate Republicans that have been in the Party ever since Lincoln's time. The name callers tend to be from the following groups:

1. Southern evangelicals that have at least one ancestor in the KKK and were Democrats up to 1968. And a disbelief in evolution is seen as a non-RINO bona fide.2. Drug addicted talk show hosts who make millions ginning up divisions within Republican ranks.3. The New John Birchers, patterned after the old John Birchers that were a reactionary bunch that were conspiracists that thought the 19th Century was the Ideal Age and no problem couln't be solved with their own personal well-oiled gun.4. Grovelling Corporatists who embrace Ayn Randian libertarianism.

One term as a governor does not undo a life in the private sector. And people who use their middle names as their first names do consider their middle names to be their first names. In fact, everyone I know who does that, if asked for a first name, would give the one they use. They're not lying, they're using the name they use as a first name.

I have a friend of ten years who I only found out months ago has a different legal first name. He hates it and has never used it in his life. You think such a person is "lying" if he gives his middle name when asked what his first name is?

This is silly, manufactured stuff, taking normal things and trying to call them "lies" when they aren't the slightest bit dishonest or deceptive.

You don't care where the train is going as long as it's not bumpy on the way. Got it.

Huh?

We want the most reliably conservative candiate who can beat Obama.

If Gingrich could win, I'd be behind him. Gingrich's campaign has been a disaster of mismanagment. He took three days off last week from campaigning in must-win Iowa to personally manage and oversee getting signatures in Virginia, and then he failed to get the signatures. He has no organization or money and is getting pounded by Romney's extended organization and by Paul directly. Since he has no cash to respond, all he can do is plaintively wail about the unfairness of it all. I hope he enjoyed is cruise that caused his staff to quit en masse, since his lack of planning at that time is causing him to be drilled into the ground now.

I give the guy credit for his successes fifteen years ago, but he has in no way demonstrated he has what it takes - other than excellent debating skills - to fight and beat Obama.

I care where the train is going, but you have to get the job as engineer before where you want to take the train remotely matters.

And people who use their middle names as their first names do consider their middle names to be their first names.

Scott is my middle name. I didn't use my first because both my grandfather and my father (and now my son) all have the same first name. When someone asks me my first name, rather than go through that explanation, I say "Scott" to keep things simple.

bagoh20 said..."We want the most reliably conservative candiate who can beat Obama. "

So do I, but I didn't vote for Obama, so it makes sense when I say it.==============It makes no sense. Voters were confronted with an unknown who might work out, against a belligerant, incoherent old man who got worse by the day after his nomination and would have been getting Rick Santorum-like numbers if he decided to run again.

That was then in 2008, this is now. If there is regret still, it is with Democrats wishing they had nominated Hillary and Republicans saying they wished Anybody But McCain had run. 2008 is water under the bridge and while someone like McCain acceptable then is unacceptable nownew choices beckon. People who voted for Obama are not under some signed contract where they have to vote for him again - anymore than Jimmy Carter "deserved" everyone that voted for him 4 years later.

Still, a brain-dead faction of true believing waiting for the Resurrection of Saint Ronald 'purists" do need it to penetrate their thick skulls that "Anybody But Obama" will not win over him.Romney can. Newt more and more is showing he can't...just like Rick Perry who is having huge difficulty shaking off the impression he is a dumber Dubya from Texas.Well, because he IS a dumber Dubya!

Bachmann and Santorum and Paul are unelectable jokes that have the love of a fringe, but no one else.Cain was a fraud that ran to increase his name profile and sell books and get more appearance fees. (Same basically with Newt, but Newt is not as obviously ignorant on a range of issues as Herman was - and Newts infidelities and "female troubles" were not current ones.) And Huntsman is the Democrats favorite Republican. Jeb Bush is cursed with his last name. The disasters of his brother are just too fresh to make Jeb a viable "next in the Dynasty".And the Dream Goddess of the right, Sarah Palin, was badly damaged goods when she decided not to run...when she was polling 26 points behind Obama.

We are not to the waterfall yet - it's still a ways up ahead, but we are very close to the last chance we will have to turn it around without requiring Herculean sacrifices and effort later. We are immorally sticking that on our decedents.

The problems are deeply ingrained in our institutions and culture now.

Are there really a majority of people who think the current course is just fine? Do they understand arithmetic? The only hope I have is that I'm completely wrong about Romney, and that he understands the gravity of the problem and how hard the choices really are to keep this nation healthy.

The U.S. failing will be unlike anything before it. Europe is so dependent on others for their resources, labor and protection that the whole continent can fail without being even a ripple compared to U.S. failure.

Yesterday the U.S. was found to be number one in individual charitable giving of money, time or just helping a stranger. It was by instance - not amount. The top 5 were all English speaking nations. Our rivals like the Chinese & Russians were very near the bottom. The world is gonna rue the day American hegemony ends.

The world can't afford for us to follow Europe down the slide, and we here certainly can't.

Sorry, Crack, buy you're just wrong. I have a lot of specific criticisms of Mormonism, but being a cult is not one of them because they simply aren't.

Moreover, I grew up Mormon and was a believer for years. I grew up on the east coast and currently live in Utah despite being a completely non-believer (it's very nice here.) I know what the reasons are for why, in general, Mormons do what they do. You clearly don't.

I was going to answer you, point-by-point, but it's you.=========================That would presume you are smart enough to answer me point-by-point. But you aren't. So your stated alternative dodge is as good a face-saving move as any you could make.

When Romney started his campaign he was proud to mention his time in both the private and public sectors. But then he saw how well a lack of public sector experience worked for Cain so he tried to copy that.

Romney saw Wolf Blitzer tell a joke, so then he tried to copy that.

Romney heard the other candidates tell sob stories, so then he made one up for himself.

During the debates he can sound very eloquent and then he has to talk about Newt, or interact with the man, and I hear him stutter and start waving his arms about.

Romney has a screw loose, and I don't think he can handle the pressure of being President.

The resistance to Romney at least partially exposes why our country it where it's at. We won't elect someone who is competent, honest, reliable, trustworthy, intelligent....

I think part of his problem is that he's so damn handsome, smart and well spoken that people can't believe he's real. Maybe he's an alien who has taken human form.

Quit bringing up Mormonism! [Kidding.]

If Mitt's so "handsome, smart and well spoken," then why'd he decline debating Newt? An ugly, brain-on-fire, bomb-thrower? It's easy - because he'd risk LOSING.

He's claimed to be a conservative, a moderate, and a progressive - what's "honest, reliable, trustworthy, intelligent...." about that? That's being duplicitous - saying whatever the audience wants to hear.

I'm no Newt fan, but you guys are determined once again - after Obama, for goodness sakes - to see what you want to see, and that capacity, for self-delusion, is truly remarkable to me. It's downright scary, even, to think you want to put us through this bullshit again - for mediated imagery. It's insane.

And then - seriously - there's Mormonism. Here's a group, with seriously warped view of things, chomping at the bit for power in this country, and you're actually considering giving it to them? What's wrong with you? I prefer Mormons over other cults, but I am watching you guys - supposedly normal Americans - take everything that makes this country great and throw it away on Pied Pipers and pipe dreams. It's a fucking sickness, I tell you.

It's pretty obvious that, one way or another, you guys are determined to take us over a cliff. You did it once and you'll do it again. Your thinking, when it comes to our nation, is as shallow as it comes. It's truly "unbelievable." If anyone had told me, growing up, that this was likely I never would've thought it possible. But it is. It really is. We're lost.

"....What you got now? You got a war. You got a global war. You got the Chinks, you got the Dominicans, the Asians, the Russians, the Columbians, Jamaicans. What they doin? They desecrate the nation. You got your variable fuckin' snowstorms of cocaine, smack -- whatever the hell else they shove in their veins. You got a worldwide crime syndicate now. There's no rules. There's no parameters. There's no feelings. There's no feelings for this country.

Frank Locascio: Anarchy.

John Gotti: You got anarchy. So... 5-10 years from now, they gonna wish there was an American Cosa Nostra. 5-10 years from now, they gonna miss John Gotti."

When the US falls (in the next 10 to 15 years) those countries that love to hate us, but love to take our money and aid and love to shield themselves behind the blood sweat and tears of our military men and women......are gonna miss the USA.

Sorry, Crack, buy you're just wrong. I have a lot of specific criticisms of Mormonism, but being a cult is not one of them because they simply aren't.

Moreover, I grew up Mormon and was a believer for years. I grew up on the east coast and currently live in Utah despite being a completely non-believer (it's very nice here.) I know what the reasons are for why, in general, Mormons do what they do. You clearly don't.

Sigh. Don't tell me what I don't know. I moved to Utah just under three years ago because my best friend is here (he's from a Mormon family) and I decided I'd rather live where there's one big cult instead of a billion little ones, like in Frisco.

I've lived with Mormons, and work with them every day - every employer I've had here has been Mormon - and there is no one who knows me who will deny I understand cultism. I'm confronted with it almost daily here.

What I don't do is buy any cult's claims on face-value, because they all lie. Joseph Smith was busted for fraud before he left New York. The golden plates story is nutty. The whole Jesus will return to America business is nuttier. Shall I go on? I can, all the way up to the present. I got my book of Mormon because I gave a fucking business card to somebody on the train, and let the cult try to recruit me, further, for fun.

You used to be Mormon. I understand your feelings. But a cult is a cult and Mormonism is most definitely a cult. I've never been wrong about one in my life.

I was going to answer you, point-by-point, but it's you.=========================That would presume you are smart enough to answer me point-by-point. But you aren't. So your stated alternative dodge is as good a face-saving move as any you could make.

Tell yourself whatever makes you feel good. Your previous stated positions are below me. I see no reason in engaging such a repulsive person.

Good grief, Jason, have you ever heard of Politics? Have you heard of reality?

I'm proud of the work I've done, but when recently interviewing for work on mobile devices, I didn't talk about my work producing educational videos. Moreover, once I figured out what they were looking for, I tailored my "sale" toward that, even if that meant omitting information someone else may have found important for the very same job. I didn't lie or exaggerate. (And yes, it worked; I got the job.)

If Mitt's so "handsome, smart and well spoken," then why'd he decline debating Newt?

Out of pity for the sawed off, chubby little runt. Debating Newt's a lose/lose situation. Newt makes wild and zany statements, drives the debate in irrational directions and tarnishes the image of the Republican party.

Joe: Moreover, once I figured out what they were looking for, I tailored my "sale" toward that, even if that meant omitting information someone else may have found important for the very same job.

I assume Romney is doing this, which is why I am concerned that he is trying to ignore his record in office.

The challenge facing any businessperson who goes into politics is their ability to work with fellow representatives as opposed to employees. Romney himself doesn't want people looking at his political history, so I tend to believe the worst.

Just had a lunch at the island with other operatives from WH, DNC, and CAP.

The word is that GOP needs to support Crack ideas. That is, ignore Romney. Never mind that his friend at HBS (Clayton Christiensen) is highly sought (and he is a mormon, would you know that?)

Romney is normal. Had we had a democrat like that (not Reid), he would do well in our party.

But, we want to make sure GOP does not nominate Romney. That would be a disaster. Think about it. He would be forced to solidify tea-partiers, etc. He could select Jindal as his VP. Two governors with records would be hard fight for Obama/Biden. The minority vote would be up for grabs. GOP voters energized.

We do not want that to happen. This is what we want:

- Paul should win IA causes on 1/3.Newt should come in 2nd just barely beating Romney.

- Paul should come in 1st again in NH. Huntsman and Newt both close to Romney.

- Romney loses FL and SC and gives up.

Our re-election is in the bag. We cannot lose with Newt as the nominee. He will be forced to select Perry due to TX and fund raiser and as no one else would want to be his VP, including Paul,

"But a cult is a cult and Mormonism is most definitely a cult."Right on Crack - !I've lived in Utah and have had many Mormon friends. The cult is generally viewed in a friendly light by secular conservative America (and many doctrinally compromised Christians) because they espouse hard work, importance of family, respect for authority, and patriotism (among other admiral attributes). I enjoyed working with and around such principled people but they're completely whacked in regards to their Salvation. You and I may disagree on theology but you’re assessment is correct.

Good grief, Jason, have you ever heard of Politics? Have you heard of reality?

This is a point I was making on another thread - we're past the point of these games. If Mitt wants to engage like that, fine, but that doesn't mean we should play with him. I know what he's up to and have no interest in it. This is about our country.

It doesn't seem clear to hardly anybody just how dangerous the coming period is (Scott's the only one to mention it in any recognizable manner on this thread) and the usual attitude of "lighten up" is totally inappropriate now:

We - the American people - have serious work to do.

This election isn't just about the economy but the whole ball of wax - our finances, culture, social security and medicare, Europe and the Middle East, and our assorted enemies, old and new - and, while most elections are about those things, on many of those topics now, we've run out of room to maneuver. That's unique. This is a time for adults, not kids enthused with "playing politics." The torch is honestly being passed and what we do from here is on us - we can't fuck it up.

But we will if we put another malleable cipher in there, and that's EXACTLY what Mitt Romney is - his Mormonism being the obvious sign of it. No "man" would put up with that shit, and I know that because I know tons who have left it - and are glad they did. Good men. Strong men, who could give a fuck what anybody thinks about doing so, because, damn it, it's their fucking lives they're talking about.

Newt may be a lot of things I don't like, but mercurial, imperious, and brash ain't any of them - he's a recognizable human being to me - and that's EXACTLY what I want. He's thought about all the issues listed above and he'll fight for us - not the value of his church, or to prove some other point. He's a conservative and won't be pushed around. He will bury liberalism (he's the only candidate to have ever mentioned the rise of Paganism in this country - or any other form of cultism - that I can think of) and, finally, free us economically through oil. He will strengthen our allies and scare the beejesus out of our enemies - foreign and domestic - just like Reagan did on Day One. And he won't flinch. Compare that to Romney, who can't walk on a debate stage without seeing a deer in the headlights.

Newt is bound to make enemies, because he takes stands - as a man should. No matter. Let them come because it's a fight worth having. We need it. We wouldn't be looking to pay for all that OWS bullshit, now, if we had someone at the top willing to tell them how misguided they are instead of encouraging them. (I'm not saying Mitt would, but would you take him seriously? Nobody else does,...)

It was once said that "what this country needs is a good family argument," and I endorse that whole-heartedly. It's time to tell the kids to sit down and shut up because the patience for their foolishness has run out. But you need a man to do that - or, at least, another Thatcher. Somebody with the will to lead - and Newt's got that. He'll end a lot of the nonsense that's gotten us into the spot we're in.

It isn't there. Period. Too many useful idiots and people who refuse to sacrifice in the least little bit. Too much focus on trivialities and blind refusal to face the ugly realities.

I have resigned myself to the end of America the idea, America the Country. Society is in a death spiral and I'm in it now to save myself, my family and my friends.

I'm not Mormon or part of any cult, but I do have a years worth of food and other sundries as well as being prepared to defend such things. Being well and far away from the urban areas which will be the locus of the worst is also a good thing.

Maybe in 50 years or so, people will look back and marvel at just how stupid we were to let the best life known to mankind in its long history, best living conditions just slip through our fingers. They will probably marvel and curse us at the same time for all the harm we have inflicted on the generations that will follow us.

I enjoyed working with and around such principled people but they're completely whacked in regards to their Salvation. You and I may disagree on theology but you’re assessment is correct.

Thanks, and I agree about the people here. Mormons aren't "bad," in the sense I see typical NewAgers - just misguided, as all cultists are to one degree or another. In many ways I love what they're trying to do, but, in the end, it's still "garbage in/garbage out" with the results being obvious.

Which is why, even here amongst their own people, they get major push-back. If the entire country gets a taste of it, we're going to also have a fight - not one we should be having but opening a whole new can of worms we don't need. Shit, here in Utah, you can barely buy a fucking beer.

Those outside of it, just looking at Romney's clean exterior, can't grasp what he's fronting for. And I'd prefer they don't find out because, if you ask me, just "normalizing" America again is good enough. It's a great country. Greatest country on Earth - no doubt about it.

No, shiloh, she's right. YOU'RE not grasping the situation. We now owe more than we make - that's dangerous. As Mark Styne said the other day, we have to come up with $15 trillion just to be broke. yet we're still acting like nothing's changed. But it has - dramatically. And America's NEVER experienced the bottom falling out. And we're not even CLOSE to prepared - especially emotionally, being used to #1 status our entire lives. Wait until you just can't go buy what you want, not only because you're short of money but because shit ain't on the shelves. Many americans will freak-the-fuck-out. Hell, on Christmas day they're willing to kill each other over tennis shoes - that's madness in any situation but in ours? It's positively suicidal.

The trouble with simply being "practial" is that one has to decide what ends are worth pursuing. To do that, one needs principles, or, at least, some ideas of what is good.

That brings us to what is called conservatism in America. Conservatives in America wish to conserve the revolutionary principles of 1776, against those who think that they are passe or simply wrong. Another way of saying the same thing is to say that a great deal of what is called "conservatism" in America could also be called classical liberalism.

If memory serves, the Left started calling classical liberals in America "conservative"--representatives of the old liberalism, against the new "Progressive" liberalism.

Crack, that's the part that I completely disagree with. Newt is missing the will, or perhaps rather the ability to lead, as shown by his personal history: fairly effective as an insurgent leader*, but once in an actual leadership position as Speaker he pretty much turned into King Mierdas.

--------------------------* I think that's largely because, depending on the insurgency, you can often get away with just being inspirational and not have to be a careful leader/decision maker. Note in the inspirational role, an excessive fascination with "oooh, bright new shiny idea!" is less debilitating."

Whining aside, it would have been helpful after 9/11, when Bush had a 90% job approval rating to ask Americans to sacrifice, instead of telling them to go shopping. And giving millionaires more tax breaks. And payin' for the misbegotten/unprovoked Iraq War w/a credit card.

I digress.

But as some of you say, "we" now have the me generation after the greatest generation and the boomers.

And yes, as always, America survives despite itself.

I'll leave you all w/a classic whine from Bart DePalma, who posts here occasionally and was a regular at 538.com.

"Our Republic Has Stumbled, But Has Not Yet Fallen"

My descriptive phrases do not begin to do justice to the damage these policies are doing to the country.

April 23, 2010 10:46 AM

I wonder whether I live in America anymore when the government imposes its will in opposition to the people. That is what ruling classes do, not representatives of the people.

May 2, 2010 4:21 PM

America electing an African/American president really threw Bartles for a loop and had him in the fetal position for quite some time.

I don't expect a collapse of the Argentinian type here. What will happen is a continuation of what we already see:

We aren't capable of doing great things anymore, because we are just to soft, too expensive, too broke, too uninspired, too cynical too bogged down enough to get out of our own way.

We will stop doing anything grand or exceptional, and we will gradually give in over and over until we are a huge Greece, with endless unrest, crime, disrespect, as the whole nation becomes one expansive rust belt coast to coast.

That's the trajectory anytime leftist/socialist ideology takes over. We are well on our way. It's simply too late for practical competence alone to meet the challenge. Romney seems like a fine man, I hope he's more than that.

If Romney wins, he better get an ideology that can survive the inauguration. That's where they weaken. When they are told they have the power to help people, they fall for it. It's a lie. You only have the power to help them help themselves by getting out of their way. The good part is: that's all we need.

Newt is missing the will, or perhaps rather the ability to lead, as shown by his personal history: fairly effective as an insurgent leader*, but once in an actual leadership position as Speaker he pretty much turned into King Mierdas.

Dude, I hear ya but I don't buy it. At this point, Newt's accomplishments are all revisionist Leftist hackery when, if he was as bad or ineffectual as they claim, we wouldn't even be talking about him. Let's recap:

First, it was Newt - alone - who had the *brilliant* idea of exploiting C-SPAN to rally conservatism's unseen (and almost unknown) army of voters.

Second, it was Newt - alone - who channeled that exposure into his leading role in the House.

Newt was co-author, but the guiding force behind The Contract With America, which solidified the Republican Party.

Newt "changed the center of gravity" of Washington (forever) and put the Democratic Party out to pasture after 40 years of House rule.

Term limits, welfare reform, the capital gains tax cut, and a balanced budget - all under Gingrich's watch and stewardship and, also, in the face of a popular Democratic president. Fuck these guys and their "Clinton did this" bullshit. Clinton's a Democrat - he came to Newt and not the other way around.

Resigned (a day after being re-elected in his state) after a threatened night of the long knives/coup attempt because he was - wait for it - "controversial." Really? Eighty-four ethics charges were filed against him but one stuck. Bad, bad, politician, this guy. The Dems know their work - and the weakness within the Republican back-bench - now toughened up a bit by the Tea Party.

Now THAT, my friend, is much more than King Mierdas cooing, "oooh, bright new shiny idea!" That's both leadership AND accomplishment - and the media, etc., can't hurt him this time.

I say let the man have the power he wants - especially when faced with *another* choice between that level of true reformer vs. the empty black suit with a red star in the White House and a see-through "celestial" Richie Rich.

In the real world, just as before, there's no contest.

Unfortunately, I usually find the real world to be a very lonely place to live,...and we've paid for that dearly.

It is indeed true that there are people who appear too good to be true, who seem to have done everything right and nothing wrong. It is infuriating. Thus do we immediately assume that "behind the surface" everything is not as it seems, there is surely some deep unhappiness, some profound depression or some secret horror that is being masked by the public perfectness. This is defensible defensiveness on our parts because we ourselves have not been blameless, have not done everything right, are hiding ugly secrets. The perfect then have to be reduced to the bland and uninteresting, the things that we very certainly are not, we with our interesting failures and unbland divorces or larcenies.

Whining aside, it would have been helpful after 9/11, when Bush had a 90% job approval rating to ask Americans to sacrifice, instead of telling them to go shopping. And giving millionaires more tax breaks. And payin' for the misbegotten/unprovoked Iraq War w/a credit card.

I digress.

You're pumping that same set of parroted lies - still? What's next? Some "fair share" nonsense? "Unicorns"?" That bullshit is right up there with the claim all the vitrol started with Obama's election after 8 YEARS of Democrat lies, ridicule, and demoralization of the armed forces during battle.

I have no respect for such an obvious ploy. You lie, Shiloh. The Democrats have NEVER cared about sacrifice or anything else, other than political leverage.

Reading this thread makes me feel like Spock. There is so much passion (almost all of it negative) that I can't relate to (too much heat, not enough light). Either Newt or Mitt would be infinitely better than Obama.

The key question is who has the best chance at beating Obama. The key to beating Obama will be persuading the non partisan independent voters to vote for the GOP candidate.

Althouse is at the left edge of the independents. Her opinion is relevant because if the GOP can persuade lots of moderate lefties such as Althouse to vote for the GOP prez candidate, the GOP has a good chance to win the election.

Another is fair market value, which is the amount that would be negotiated at a specific date, in an open and unrestricted market between knowledgeable, willing, but not anxious buyer and seller at arm’s length.